Analysis of species coexistence co-mediated by resource competition and reproductive interference

Reproductive interference is any interspecific sexual interaction that reduces the reproductive success of females through promiscuous reproductive activities of heterospecific individuals. This phenomenon is ubiquitous in nature in both plants and animals, and is frequently observed in biological invasions. However, its effects on interspecific competition remain incompletely understood despite growing concern. To study the interactive effects of resource competition and reproductive interference on species coexistence and exclusion, we analyzed a unified competition model including both processes in symmetric and asymmetric scenarios. The results of our model showed that resource competition and reproductive interference act synergistically to promote competitive exclusion. We also found that when the two processes are asymmetric, the species that is superior in reproductive interference can coexist with or even exclude the species that is superior in resource competition. Therefore, coexistence is possible via an unbalanced trade-off between resource use and reproduction. Our results suggest that integration of reproductive interference and resource competition will contribute to a better understanding of interspecific competition and to more effective biodiversity conservation against management of biological invasions.     

Reproductive interference in two ground-hopper species: testing hypotheses of coexistence in the field

Similar to resource competition, reproductive interference may hamper the coexistence of closely related species. Species that utilize similar signal channels during mate finding may face substantial fitness costs when they come into contact and demographic displacement of the inferior species (sexual exclusion) is a likely outcome of such interactions. The two ground‐hopper species Tetrix ceperoi and Tetrix subulata broadly overlap in their ranges and general habitat requirements, but rarely co‐occur on a local scale. Results from laboratory and field experiments suggest that this mosaic pattern of sympatry might be influenced by reproductive interference. Here, we examine the significance of sexual interactions for these species in the field and test hypotheses on mechanisms of coexistence. Our results show that heterospecific sexual interactions also occur under field conditions, but in contrast to the experiments T. ceperoi was not the inferior species. The number of male mating attempts of both species was strongly correlated with encounter frequencies. Males discriminated between the sexes but not between the species, suggesting an incomplete mate recognition system in both species. The analysis of microhabitat preferences and spatial distribution revealed that habitat partitioning is not a suitable mechanism of coexistence in this system. Instead, the costs of reproductive interference are substantially mitigated by different niche breadths leading to different degrees of aggregation. Despite a considerable niche overlap T. ceperoi displayed a stronger preference for bare ground and occurred more aggregated than T. subulata, which had a broader niche. These differences may reduce the frequencies of heterospecific encounters and interactions in the field. Our results demonstrate that coexistence in the presence of reproductive interference is comparable to resource competition, being strongly influenced by ecological traits of the involved species, such as niche breadth and dispersion pattern.     

A COEVOLUTIONARY ISOMORPHISM APPLIED TO LABORATORY STUDIES OF COMPETITION

Some empirical consequences of an isomorphism between the Lotka-Volterra competitive model and a coevolutionary competitive model are developed. In both the Lotka-Volterra and coevolutionary models, four competitive outcomes are possible: 1) species one wins, 2) species two wins, 3) indeterminate outcome, and 4) stable coexistence. These two models are isomorphic in the sense that the inequalities associated with a particular competitive outcome of the Lotka-Volterra model correspond in a one-to-one manner with similar inequalities associated with the same competitive outcome of the coevolutionary model. The inequalities of the Lotka-Volterra model involve the competition coefficients themselves, while the inequalities of the coevolutionary model involve the genetic variances and covariances of the competition coefficients. The isomorphism suggests some alternative interpretations of the results of classical laboratory studies of competition. The Lotka-Volterra (or ecological) hypotheses postulate that the competition coefficients are constant and that genetic considerations play no role in determining the competitive outcome. By contrast, the evolutionary hypotheses derived from the coevolutionary model postulate that the competition coefficients are variables and that the genetic variances and covariances of the competition coefficients determine the competitive outcome. The isomorphism is applied to competitive exclusion and coexistence, and to competitive indeterminacy in Tribolium. In particular, the evolutionary hypotheses isomorphic to the two classical explanations of competitive indeterminacy, the demographic stochasticity and genetic founder effect hypotheses, are constructed. The theory developed here and in a previous paper (Pease, 1984) provides one perspective on the relation among the Lotka-Volterra competition theory, quantitative genetics, competitive exclusion, the reversal of competitive dominance, coexistence, competitive indeterminacy in Tribolium, and experiments investigating the relation between genetic variability and the rate of evolution of fitness.     

Effects of density-restricted food encounter on some single-level competition models

A family of two-species competition models in which density-restricted rates of food enounter are explicitly incorporated generates the following results:

1. 1. Sigmoidal growth. A new model for sigmoidal single-species growth is produced, but one whose inflection point always falls below half the carrying capacity.

2. 2. Comparison with simpler models. In models having shared and exclusive resources, the one or two stable nodes of simpler models may no longer occur in the first quadrant. Such models can simulate how one species by consuming enough overlapping resource can cause another species, unable to maintain itself on its exclusive resources, to go extinct. In models for interspecific interference competition (resource competition purely intraspecific), one or even two more intersections of the zero-isoclines may occur, or the isoclines may intersect once, but with different relative slopes than in the simpler models.

3. 3. Alternative communities. A new model is produced for alternative communities. Conditions for this situation, phrased in terms of parameters measuring feeding and competitive abilities, are rather narrow.

     

Ants versus spiders: interference competition between two social predators

Interference competition can profoundly influence the outcome of species interactions and may lead to either coexistence or exclusion. Our understanding of how interference can lead to coexistence remains incomplete, particularly when interference fails to result in resource partitioning. I document a novel form of interference competition between an ant (Myrmecia pyriformis) and a social spider (Delena cancerides) with similar foraging patterns. Of 120 nest boxes occupied by D. cancerides in the field, 7 (6 %) were invaded by M. pyriformis ants over a 2-month period. After eliminating spiders from the nest boxes, the ants proceeded to fill the boxes with debris, rendering them useless to the spiders. The ants do not occupy the nest boxes; thus, interference occurs at a resource that is necessary to one species, but not the other. I discuss how further research into this system may improve our understanding of how interference competition can support coexistence. I also suggest modeling exploitation and interference competition on multiple resources to align with this and other empirical examples where different forms of competition occur for different resources.     

Ecological character displacement caused by reproductive interference

We carried out a theoretical investigation of whether ecological character displacement can be caused by reproductive interference. Our model assumes that a quantitative character is associated with both resource use and species recognition, and that heterospecific mating incurs costs. The model shows that ecological character displacement can occur as a consequence of evolution of premating isolation; this conclusion is based on the premise that resource competition is less intense between species than within species and that the ecological character also contributes to premating isolation. When resource competition between species is intense, extinction of either species may occur by competitive exclusion before ecological character divergence. Some observational studies have shown that character displacement in body size is associated with not only resources use but also species recognition. We propose that body size displacement can occur as a consequence of evolution of premating isolation. Our results suggest that ecological character displacement results from reproductive character displacement.     

Classical and resource-based competition: a unifying graphical approach

A graphical technique is given for determining the outcome of two species competition for two resources. This method is unifying in the sense that the graphical criterion leading to the various outcomes of competition are consistent across most of the spectrum of resource types (from those that fulfill the same growth needs to those that fulfill different needs) regardless of the classification method used, and the resulting graphs bear a striking resemblance to the well-known phase portraits for two species Lotka–Volterra competition. Our graphical method complements that of Tilman. Both include zero net growth isoclines. However, instead of using the consumption vectors at potential coexistence equilibria to determine input resource concentrations leading to specific competitive outcomes, we introduce curves bounding the feasible set (the set where the resource concentrations of any equilibrium solution must be located). The washout equilibrium (corresponding to the supply point) occurs at an intersection of curves defining the feasible set boundary. The resource concentrations of all other equilibria are found where zero net growth isoclines either intersect each other inside the feasible set or they intersect the feasible set boundary. A species has positive biomass at such an equilibrium only if its zero net growth isocline is involved in such an intersection. The competitive outcomes are then determined from the position of the single species equilibria, just as in the phase portrait analysis for classical competition (rather than from information at potential coexistence equilibria as in Tilman’s method).     

Interference competition and species coexistence

Interference competition is ubiquitous in nature. Yet its effects on resource exploitation remain largely unexplored for species that compete for dynamic resources. Here, I present a model of exploitative and interference competition with explicit resource dynamics. The model incorporates both biotic and abiotic resources. It considers interference competition both in the classical sense (i.e. each species suffers a net reduction in per capita growth rate via interference from, and interference on, the other species) and in the broad sense (i.e. each species suffers a net reduction in per capita growth rate via interference from, but can experience an increase in growth rate via interference on, the other species). Coexistence cannot occur under classical interference competition even when the species inferior at resource exploitation is superior at interference. Such a trade-off can, however, change the mechanism of competitive exclusion from dominance by the superior resource exploiter to a priority effect. Now the inferior resource exploiter can exclude the superior resource exploiter provided it has a higher initial abundance. By contrast, when interference is beneficial to the interacting species, coexistence is possible via a trade-off between exploitation and interference. These results hold regardless of whether the resource is biotic or abiotic, indicating that the outcome of exploitative and interference competition does not depend on the exact nature of resource dynamics. The model makes two key predictions. First, species that engage in costly interference mechanisms (e.g. territoriality, overgrowth or undercutting, allelopathy and other forms of chemical competition) should not be able to coexist unless they also engage in beneficial interference mechanisms (e.g. predation or parasitism). Second, exotic invasive species that displace native biota should be superior resource exploiters that have strong interference effects on native species with little or negative cost. The first prediction provides a potential explanation for patterns observed in several natural systems, including plants, aquatic invertebrates and insects. The second prediction is supported by data on invasive plants and vertebrates.     

Niche overlap in allotopic and syntopic populations of sexually interacting ground‐hopper species

Abstract There is accumulating evidence that sexual interactions among species (reproductive interference) could have dramatic effects for species’ coexistence. It has been shown that the fitness of individuals can be substantially reduced as a consequence of reproductive interference. This might subsequently lead to displacement of a species (sexual exclusion). On the other hand, some evolutionary and ecological mechanisms might enable species to coexist, such as the divergence of mate recognition systems (reproductive character displacement), habitat partitioning, clumped dispersion patterns or different colonization capabilities. We have previously shown that the two ground‐hopper species Tetrix subulata and Tetrix ceperoi interact sexually in the laboratory as well as in the field. At sites where both species co‐occur niche overlap was high, suggesting that coexistence is maintained by different niche breadths rather than by habitat partitioning. To test the hypothesis that habitat partitioning does not contribute to species’ coexistence, we examined whether allotopic and syntopic populations of these two species differ in niche overlap (competitive release). Our results show that niche overlap is higher in syntopic than in allotopic populations, suggesting that the site‐specific habitat structure (heterogeneity) has a stronger influence on microhabitat utilization than the presence of heterospecifics. Hence, our data do not support the hypothesis that habitat partitioning plays a substantial role for the coexistence of these sexually interacting species.     

Competition in variable environments: experiments with planktonic rotifers

1. In a constant environment, competition often tends to reduce species diversity. However, several theories predict that temporal variation in the environment can slow competitive exclusion and allow competing species to coexist. This study reports on laboratory competition experiments in which two pairs of planktonic rotifer species competed for a phytoplankton resource under different conditions of temporal variability in resource supply.
2. For both species pairs, Keratella cochlearis dominated under all conditions of temporal variability, and the other species ( Brachionus calyciflorus or Synchaeta sp.) almost always went extinct. Increasing temporal variation in resource supply slowed competitive exclusion but did not change competitive outcome or allow coexistence.
3. Rotifers show a gleaner–opportunist trade-off, because gleaner species have low threshold resource levels ( R *) and low maximum population growth rates, while opportunist species have the opposite characteristics. In the competition experiments, the gleaner always won and the opportunists always lost. Thus, a gleaner–opportunist trade-off was not sufficient to facilitate coexistence under conditions of resource variability. Instead, the winning species had both the lowest R * and the greatest ability to store resources and ration their use during times of extreme resource scarcity.     

Competition and coexistence with multiple life-history stages

Do complex life histories affect the conditions under which competitors can coexist? We investigated this using a two-species, two-stage Ricker model. With complex life cycles, the competition coefficients associated with each life-history stage suggest one of three competitive outcomes-coexistence, alternate stable states, or competitive exclusion-that depend on the relative magnitudes of intraspecific and interspecific competition. When the two stages suggest the same outcome, only that outcome can occur. When the stages suggest different outcomes, either one may prevail. It is also possible to have emergent outcomes, in which the outcome is not suggested by either stage. This can occur when the two stages suggest competitive exclusion by opposite species or when one stage suggests alternate stable states and the other suggests coexistence. Therefore, determining the mechanisms of coexistence in species with complex life histories may require consideration of competitive interactions within all life-history stages.     

Competitive exclusion and coexistence for pathogens in an epidemic model with variable population size

We study an SIR epidemic model with a variable host population size. We prove that if the model parameters satisfy certain inequalities then competition between n pathogens for a single host leads to exclusion of all pathogens except the one with the largest basic reproduction number. It is shown that a knowledge of the basic reproduction numbers is necessary but not sufficient for determining competitive exclusion. Numerical results illustrate that these inequalities are sufficient but not necessary for competitive exclusion to occur. In addition, an example is given which shows that if such inequalities are not satisfied then coexistence may occur.     

Allelopathy prevents competitive exclusion and promotes phytoplankton biodiversity

It has been hypothesized that allelopathy can prevent competitive exclusion and promote phytoplankton diversity in aquatic ecosystems, where numerous species coexist on a limited number of resources. However, experimental proof‐of‐principle is not available to support this hypothesis. Here we present the first experimental evidence to support this hypothesis by demonstrating that allelopathy promotes the coexistence of two phytoplankton species, Ankistrodesmus falcatus and Oscillatoria sp., that compete for a single limiting nutrient. By performing long‐term competition experiments in nitrate‐limited continuous cultures, and by describing the population dynamics using a mechanistic model, we demonstrate that when allelopathy comes into play, one of the following outcomes is possible depending on the relative initial abundances of the species: dominance of the stronger competitor for nitrate (the non‐allelopathic species), oscillatory coexistence, or dominance of the weaker competitor (the allelopathic species). Our model analysis revealed that sustained oscillatory coexistence of the two species would be a common outcome of this experiment. Our study confirms for the first time, based on laboratory experiments combined with mechanistic models, that allelopathy can alter the predicted outcome of inter‐specific competition in a nutrient‐limited environment and increase the potential for the coexistence of more species than resources, thereby contributing to the identification of endogenous mechanisms that explain the extreme diversity of phytoplankton communities.     

Using exclusion rate to unify niche and neutral perspectives on coexistence

The competitive exclusion principle is one of the most influential concepts in ecology. The classical formulation suggests a correlation between competitor species similarity and competition severity, leading to rapid competitive exclusion where species are very similar; yet neutral models show that identical species can persist in competition for long periods. Here, we resolve the conflict by examining two components of similarity – niche overlap and competitive similarity – and modeling the effects of each on exclusion rate (defined as the inverse of time to exclusion). Studying exclusion rate, rather than the traditional focus on binary outcomes (coexistence versus exclusion), allows us to examine classical niche and neutral perspectives using the same currency. High niche overlap speeds exclusion, but high similarity in competitive ability slows it. These predictions are confirmed by a well‐known model of two species competing for two resources. Under ecologically plausible scenarios of correlation between these two factors, the strongest exclusion rates may be among moderately similar species, while very similar and highly dissimilar competitors have very low exclusion rates. Adding even small amounts of demographic stochasticity to the model blurs the line between deterministic and probabilistic coexistence still further. Thus, focusing on exclusion rate, instead of on the binary outcome of coexistence versus exclusion, allows a variety of outcomes to result from competitive interactions. This approach may help explain species coexistence in diverse competitive communities and raises novel issues for future work.     

Density compensation,isocline shape and single-level competition models

Criticism of the Lotka-Volterra competition model implies that the theory of competition should be based upon more general concepts. It is suggested that the shape of the competitor isoclines can provide this basis.The relationship between the total density of a competitive community and species number depends crucially upon isocline shape. This has immediate relevance to the interpretation of the excess density compensation seen in some island communities, since if isoclines are sufficiently concave (curved towards the origin) then this phenomenon is expected to be the rule rather than the exception.These observations do not depend upon any specific model, but in order to determine the shape of isoclines in natural communities a link must be made between the biological processes of competition and isocline shape. To this end three types of single-level competition model are distinguished (additive, multiplicative and temporal resource models) depending upon how gains from resources interact in determining individual fitness.The models are based upon resource availability functions (RAFs), which are decreasing functions of the level of competition and determine the availability of each resource to each species. Provided that the argument of these functions is always a weighted sum of the number of competitors then in the case of the additive resource model the shape of the RAFs determines directly the shape of the isoclines. For the multiplicative model, the shape of the logarithm of the RAFs adopts this role.Analysis of a special case of the additive resource model suggests that concave isoclines are likely to predominate, and that the degree of concavity is of an order which minimizes the tendency of total numbers to increase with species number. In some circumstances, involving “scramble”-type competition and habitat selection, the expected concavity is sufficient to cause a decrease. In any event the expected occurrence of concave competition isoclines predicts a much higher incidence of excess density compensation (due to carrying capacity differences) than expected from any model having linear isoclines.The effect of shifting from an additive to a multiplicative resource model is to make the existence of purely concave isoclines less probable and to raise the possibility of purely convex isoclines. On the other hand, shifting from an additive resource model to a temporal resource model apparently has no such simple interpretation and specific predictions must await further analysis.     

基于竞争和扩散能力的非捕食-被捕食集合种群系统的竞争机制

对于非捕食 被捕食(食饵)生态系统,强弱物种之间存在一定的竞争影响.在不考虑栖息地毁坏的情况下,引进双向竞争机制,将Tilman的单向竞争模式推广为n集合种群双向竞争模型,并对6-集合种群的竞争动态进行了计算机模拟研究.结果表明,在平衡态,种群竞争共存的条件是其竞争能力与扩散能力呈现指数型负相关关系,竞争的结果使物种的强弱序列发生变化;物种竞争排除与共存受迁移扩散能力和竞争能力影响很大,在局域斑块上竞争排斥的集合种群在广域尺度上可以竞争共存,即逃亡共存.     

Alternatives to Lotka-Volterra competition: Models of intermediate complexity

A family of one-level differential-equation competition models in which two populations are limited by the energy flowing into the system generates the following results. For competitors on the same and only resource: 1) Purely exploitative competition leads to exclusion; which species wins depends on relative abilities to appropriate and extract energy from the resource, and the relative death and maintenance rates. 2) If conspecific interference (e.g., deaths or energy loss from fighting, cannibalism, or display) is sufficiently high relative to abilities to exploit the common resource, competition for the same resource can lead to coexistence. 3) If heterospecific interference is sufficiently high relative to abilities to exploit the common resource, competition for the same resource can lead to a priority effect, in which the outcome depends on initial population sizes. 4) Depending on whether situation (2) or (3) prevails, an increase in the amount of the common resource can convert an outcome in which one species always wins into one giving coexistence (2) or a priority effect (3). 5) If species are similar to one another in their abilities to appropriate and extract energy from the common resource and show reciprocity in intererence costs, competition can have multiple outcomes; either one species wins or the species coexist, depending on initial values.For competition on the same resource, but with each species monopolizing an exclusive resource as well: 1) Purely exploitative competition always leads to a unique point coexistence. 2) If interference is added to the system described in (1), two points of coexistence, separated by a saddle (an “unstable equilibrium”) are possible. This is favored by a) a small yield from the exclusive resources relative to the common one; and b) strong interspecific relative to intraspecific interference.     

Kolmogorov-type competition model with finitely supported allocation profiles and its applications to plant competition for sunlight

A Kolmogorov-type competition model featuring allocation profiles, gain functions, and cost parameters is examined. For plant species that compete for sunlight according to the canopy partitioning model [R.R. Vance and A.L. Nevai, Plant population growth and competition in a light gradient: a mathematical model of canopy partitioning, J. Theor. Biol. 245 (2007), pp. 210–219] the allocation profiles describe vertical leaf placement, the gain functions represent rates of leaf photosynthesis at different heights, and the cost parameters signify the energetic expense of maintaining tall stems necessary for gaining a competitive advantage in the light gradient. The allocation profiles studied here, being supported on three alternating intervals, determine “interior” and “exterior” species. When the allocation profile of the interior species is a delta function (a big leaf) then either competitive exclusion or coexistence at a single globally attracting equilibrium point occurs. However, if the allocation profile of the interior species is piecewise continuous or a weighted sum of delta functions (multiple big leaves) then multiple coexistence states may also occur.     

Coexistence of species competing for shared resources

In this paper we develop a mathematical model in which any number of competing species can coexist on four resources which regenerate according to an algebraic relationship. We show that previous attempts to prove that n species cannot coexist on fewer that n resources (the “competitive exclusion principle”) all make use of the very restrictive assumption that the specific growth rates of all competing species are linear functions of resource densities. When this restriction is relaxed, it becomes possible to find situations in which n species can coexist on fewer than n resources. On the basis of this and other observations we conclude that the competitive exclusion principle should be considered to apply only to coexistence at fixed densities.